lawyers plse help with laws that prevent shooting down quad!

There are law. They just don't specify a drone as they don't need to. You cannot cause damage to someone's personal property. You need a legal reason to do this. If the person flying the drone was not causing the person any harm than the home legally cannot shoot it down. Again, that's a civil tort of causing property damage. Criminal probably comes into play as a gun was discharged. I think this is where people are confused. If a person shoots down a drone the property damage is going to be a civil matter... one where the drone owner can collect. There does not need to be a criminal law specifically against it.

There is no law specifically against me shooting your Honda lawnmower. There is no law specifically against me shooting your 2015 Honda Accord. There is no law against me shooting your drone, etc.
 
I love target practice. I have ccw license. I am active on a few gun forums.

There is active discussion now on one (http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gene...ver-your-back-yard-7.html?posted=1#post579423) where even lawyers are stating that there are NO laws that stop homeowners from shooting down a drone flying over their property!

So the consensus is growing among gun enthusiants that they can shoot down drones any time they want!

HELP!

Any lawyers here who can site specific laws that we can tell these folks??


Is is a federal offense to damage or interfere with the operation of a civil aircraft. The U. S. Attorney for your district is responsible for prosecution of this crime. There are cases establishing that a UAS is a "civil aircraft" and this is a good reason to register your drone with the FAA and get an N number.


18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
(a)Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
(2) places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;
(3) sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables any air navigation facility, or interferes by force or violence with the operation of such facility, if such fire, damaging, destroying, disabling, or interfering is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft in flight;
(4) with the intent to damage, destroy, or disable any such aircraft, sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables or places a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, any appliance or structure, ramp, landing area, property, machine, or apparatus, or any facility or other material used, or intended to be used, in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading or storage of any such aircraft or any cargo carried or intended to be carried on any such aircraft;
(5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft;
(6) performs an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft;
(7) communicates information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any such aircraft in flight; or
(8) attempts or conspires to do anything prohibited under paragraphs (1) through (7) of this subsection;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.
 
There is no law specifically against me shooting your 2015 Honda Accord. There is no law against me shooting your drone, etc.
Yes, there is. Because the FAA and NTSB call personal UAS (drones) aircraft, then they should enjoy the federal protection due them from 18 U.S. Code § 32 - 'Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities' and 49 USC § 46504 - 'Interference with flight crew members and attendants'

State or local laws covering the destruction of someone's personal property may also apply, but once airborne, the flight, the interference and the destruction of the aircraft are the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
 
It isn't an FAA rule, it is 18 U.S. Code § 32 - 'Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities'. The NTSB and the FAA consider personal drones are aircraft. (Huerta v Pirker, NTSB Docket CP-217).

It is not the FAA who would press charges, it's the US Attorney.

Thanks! Since we read about folks being charged more and more often now for downing drones, what are the local police charging them with?
 
Thanks! Since we read about folks being charged more and more often now for downing drones, what are the local police charging them with?
Usually illegal discharge of firearms, destruction of private property or simply malicious mischief. Local police do not have the authority to enforce FAA rules, but they are encouraged to share the information with the FAA. [link]. If the FAA thinks it egregious enough they can ask the US Attorney to prosecute. But if the US Attorney doesn't want to investigate, it stops there.

But, once there is a high-profile drone shooting, the DOJ will take action. A high profile shooting would be one where an innocent person is injured by the projectile or the falling drone. Or when it's a drone delivering medications or pathological samples This is already occurring in the US - link, and has been in use in Europe for more than a year.

If enough people ask their district US Attorney (there's 94 of them) to investigate a drone shooting in their district [link], one of them may actually do their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yorlik
Yes, there is. Because the FAA and NTSB call personal UAS (drones) aircraft, then they should enjoy the federal protection due them from 18 U.S. Code § 32 - 'Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities' and 49 USC § 46504 - 'Interference with flight crew members and attendants'

State or local laws covering the destruction of someone's personal property may also apply, but once airborne, the flight, the interference and the destruction of the aircraft are the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
You may be correct but I'd disagree. That interpretation may only apply to the ruling that the FAA regulates drones as aircraft, not that they are an aircraft in every regard. For example, I'm betting that there is some reg that requires a a pilots license to operate an aircraft. In that case a different definition would apply.
 
Thanks! Since we read about folks being charged more and more often now for downing drones, what are the local police charging them with?

This about three weeks old but here is what the Police charged the "Kentucky Shooter" with:

"Merideth was charged with first-degree endangerment for shooting into the air and criminal mischief. His wife, Janet, posted a $2,500 bond, and Merideth is due in court in September."
 
  • Like
Reactions: yorlik
Let's watch this one. He will likely plead "no contest" and get a reduced fine and a warning about indiscriminate shooting inside the city limits. THEN someone in Western Kentucky should ask the US Attorney to charge him with violation of 18 U.S. Code § 32. We need an example and a precedent and this shooter's arrogance could make this a good one.

FYI:
U.S. Attorney John E. Kuhn, Jr.
Western District of Kentucky
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 582-5911
Fax: (502) 582-509
 
I agree that's what we need but do we need flyers doing what that one did ( if it went down like that ) leading the way for us to get vindication ?
He was charged with that to start with but then it said
Just saying and I don't know the other side cause he declined to speak .
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Drone-Dispute-Lands-Man-in-Jail-322232372.html

Sounds like the DA is running for re-election, and put his finger up in the wind, and decided that prosecuting the case would be an unpopular decision, given the reaction of the public, which is apparently 99% on the side of the tee shirt thrower, if the comments to the article are representative. Indeed, if prosecuted as a felony charge, could you get all 12 jurors to convict, when only 1% of the public sides with the drone owner? Juror nullification would make this case a certain loser in court. At least the jackass was arrested, and spent a night in jail. That should make others think twice about vigilante drone vandalism!:cool:

The teeshirt thrower is also still civilly liable for all damages to the drone, should the drone operator bring civil action. That case will be a slam dunk winner! Declining criminal prosecution at this time only means that the DA decided that proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt was unlikely. It's doesn't mean the defendent is not guilty of the charge, and it certainly doesn't mean the defendent is innocent! The DA can also still later decide to file charges and prosecute the defendent, based upon additional evidence, or even a change of public opinion which might make conviction more likely, for up to 3 years from the date of the crime!
 
Last edited:
Sounds like the DA is running for re-election, and put his finger up in the wind, and decided that prosecuting the case would be an unpopular decision, given the reaction of the public which is apparently 99% on the side of the tee shirt thrower, based upon the comments. Indeed, if prosecuted as a felony charge, could you get 12 jurors to convict, when only 1% of the public sides with the drone owner? Jury nullification would make this case a certain loser in court. At least the jackass was arrested, and spent a night in jail. That should make others think twice about vigilante drone vandalism!:cool:
Whatever you think GadgetGuy . I don't think we should be flying like was in that article but without hearing the pilots side I don't know what happened . I mean hey..maybe the pilot was the jackass . I dono . I would like to hear the other side though .
 
as much as i hate this country im glad we dont really have to deal with this gun thing that much

By that "gun thing" you must mean freedom. That's ok, enjoy being a subject. I'm a citizen of The United States of America.

And believe it or not, there are hundreds of millions of us who own firearms and use them responsibly. There are also many instances where armed Citizens end the lives of malicious scum that want to take their property or their lives, because the police are only available to file the report after the crime.

And then sometimes you just have to shoot down a drone. *shrug*. Don't fly it in range of someone's backyard.

Just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
Whatever you think GadgetGuy . I don't think we should be flying like was in that article but without hearing the pilots side I don't know what happened . I mean hey..maybe the pilot was the jackass . I dono . I would like to hear the other side though .
Hey

Sorry I messed up and thought this was the T Shirt topic ! Sorry @GadgetGuy My Bad !!!
 
By that "gun thing" you must mean freedom. That's ok, enjoy being a subject. I'm a citizen of The United States of America.

And believe it or not, there are hundreds of millions of us who own firearms and use them responsibly. There are also many instances where armed Citizens end the lives of malicious scum that want to take their property or their lives, because the police are only available to file the report after the crime.

And then sometimes you just have to shoot down a drone. *shrug*. Don't fly it in range of someone's backyard.

Just sayin'.
not really sure how to take your post tbh
 
I believe he is saying we Americans are proud of our 2nd amendment and are not ready to let our goverment take our guns away like in uk.
 
Whatever you think GadgetGuy . I don't think we should be flying like was in that article but without hearing the pilots side I don't know what happened . I mean hey..maybe the pilot was the jackass . I dono . I would like to hear the other side though .
Agreed. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should! The pilot can be heard in the video in the newscast link I provided above, briefly explaining his side, in a telephone interview. Perhaps his claim of use of the drone for business is the hiccup. It is doubtful he has been granted a 333 exception for business use, and any additional civil claim for loss of income would be unsustainable, since he is otherwise limited to hobbyist use. Damages, sure, but loss of income, no.
 
I was on the T shirt topic, so I think we are on the same page...:cool:
OK..I thought after looking I had hit the shotgun one .
As far as the t shirt guy I really wish the pilot had made a statement cause from just the other guys statement something just don't sound right .
I don't think you would have flown like that and nether would I have .:)
 
OK..I thought after looking I had hit the shotgun one .
As far as the t shirt guy I really wish the pilot had made a statement cause from just the other guys statement something just don't sound right .
I don't think you would have flown like that and nether would I have .:)
The pilot in the t shirt throwing incident did talk to the news reporter and part of his telephone interview is included in the newscast video at the link I provided above. He sounds really young. But you can hear him talking about it. Separately, I read somewhere that he works for one of the drone manufacturers locally. I wouldn't fly anywhere near anyone who was annoyed by my drone, any more than I would continue photographing someone with my DSLR that was upset. Drone pilot was supposedly landing the drone when the T shirt was thrown over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirkclod

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers